CAIRO: While reaching a consensus that the push for change has taken a socio-economic rather than a strictly political direction, Egyptian intellectuals, analysts and political activists are still debating the implications of the recent Judges’ Club elections on what’s been labeled as the “Correction Wave in Egypt.
Apprehension and optimism were both present at a panel discussion on “The Future of the Correction Wave in Egypt in Light of the Judges’ Club Elections, hosted by the Ibn Rushd Salon of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies on Tuesday. Yet the consensus was that material demands have been far more effective in mobilizing the Egyptian people than the quest for political reform.
The discussion took place nearly three weeks after the victory of Judge Ahmed El-Zand and 10 members from his list, largely seen as pro-government candidates, in the Judges’ Club elections.
Judges from the opposing ‘Independence’ faction of the club, part of the Correction Wave, contend that the vote was tipped by government promises of material benefits such as higher salaries and certain tax exemptions.
Amr El-Chobaky, head of Euro-Arab studies at the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies and one of the panelists, sees the Correction Wave in Egypt as being composed of two phases.
The first, between 2004 and 2006, was marked by clear political dissent spearheaded by the Kefaya Movement for Change and joined by judges protesting election fraud in 2005.
“People were emboldened by the Kefaya movement. If they could criticize the President, the biggest boss of all, then factory workers and journalists and others could also criticize their (smaller) bosses, El-Chobaky said.
The second phase is characterized by individualistic, haphazard dissent often associated with a particular set of demands, such as pay increases.
Mohamed Aboul-Ghar, a prominent physician and one of the foremost leaders of the March 9 movement for the independence of universities from government intervention and academic corruption, asserted that it was necessary for the continuation of organized political movements to incorporate the material aspect that would serve as a stronger mobilizing force, especially in light of growing economic turmoil.
El-Chobaky was alarmed by this demise of organized movements. “Every organized movement is being aborted, or rather thwarted, in Egypt, he said.
The isolation by the government of organized movements and the elimination of credible mediators in the form of syndicates or professional organizations opens the door to haphazard protesting that can often take a violent form. Sooner or later, the government will once again search for mediators between itself and the people, said El-Chobaky.
Yet Aboul-Ghar took a more optimistic view of the club elections.
“The results were not a disaster; they won by a margin of only 500 votes.
That the government felt the need to steer away from fielding corrupt or overtly pro-government candidates was in itself a good sign, said Aboul-Ghar.
Kefaya co-founder George Ishaq shared Aboul-Ghar’s optimism. “The tone of desperation and despair is dangerous. Elections are not the end of the world, he said.
Ishaq rejected the idea, circulated during the discussion, that Kefaya’s role had diminished in the last couple of years.
“What’s happening in Egyptian society now is the spirit of Kefaya, he said. “Kefaya made [the new atmosphere of protest] possible by defeating the culture of fear, establishing the right to strike and criticizing the President.
Nevertheless, Ishaq felt that the chance for judges to push for real change was lost in 2005 when they adopted a conversational rather than a confrontational strategy.
El-Chobaky disagrees. Judges at the time could not have taken more action due to the limitations posed by government pressures, including breaches by security officials, he said.
Moreover, El-Chobaky argued that opposition movements may be blamed for some of the failures of the judges’ movement.
Opposition parties, civil society organizations and independent media have portrayed these judges as political dissenters, when in fact their objections aimed at safeguarding judicial integrity. The fear of politicizing the judiciary may have swayed the results of the elections, he said.
Yet the lingering tone of the discussion was one of resolve.
“We must keep fighting for our rights, but we must also assess our wins and losses in realistic terms, said Gamal Fahmy, journalist and member on the board of the Journalists’ Syndicate and the final panelist in the discussion.
“We can’t have enclaves of freedom within the same regime. The judicial issue is a fundamental component of the larger battle – the battle for democracy.
